ILNews

COA affirms jury's rejection of insanity defense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has sided with a jury in rejecting a man’s insanity plea, holding that even when crimes seem horrific and senseless, that does not mean the perpetrator is legally insane.

In James Fernbach v. State of Indiana, No. 69A01-1103-CR-151, James Fernbach claimed the jury erred when it found him mentally ill but guilty of two counts of Class A felony attempted murder. He contended that he should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity and that his 60-year sentence was inappropriate.

The appeals court wrote that Fernbach had a long history of mental illness and a violent past. He had been institutionalized as a teenager, and as a young man, he was arrested several times for acts of domestic violence – such as threatening his girlfriend, with whom he fathered a child, with an axe and attempting to strangle her.

In 2008, Fernbach’s family removed firearms from the household after he fired a shotgun into the woods, claiming that he was shooting at intruders. He also put nails in the home’s gutters, to prevent people from getting onto the roof.

Fernbach’s family attempted to get help for his paranoid behavior, taking him to two different emergency rooms, where he was treated for anxiety and released. His family had him involuntary committed to a hospital, and he was released after 72 hours.

In April 2009, Fernbach – armed with an illegally purchased handgun – shot two people, without provocation, at a gas station. He shot Philip Cruser in the head, leaving him with severe disabilities, and attempted to shoot another man – Benjamin Dick – in the head. Dick was able to grab Fernbach's arm, deflecting the shot, but a bullet went through his hand. Fernbach was attempting to reload his gun when Dick urged him to flee the scene and not shoot him again.

Fernbach sped off, and when he arrived at home, he told his wife he thought he killed someone by accident. But Fernbach initially told police he didn’t remember much about the shootings, and then later told police that he was defending himself against Dick, who he alleged had attacked him.

At trial, two doctors provided testimony about Fernbach’s psychiatric health that could have been favorable to the defense, but, the appeals court held, neither doctor spoke with anyone other than Fernbach, and one doctor admitted that a defendant’s statements alone are among the least reliable sources for a psychiatric examination.

The appeals court wrote that the defendant bears the burden of establishing the insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Citing Indiana Criminal Code 35-41-3-6(a), the appeals court held that in order to meet this burden, the defendant must establish both that he suffers from a mental illness, and that his mental illness rendered him unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offense.

Although Fernbach did call the police, when questioned by the police, he asked one of the officers whether he could receive the death penalty for his crimes, indicating knowledge that his actions were criminal. His ensuing suicide attempt in jail could also be construed as indicating knowledge of the wrongfulness of his conduct, the court held.

The court also held that while Fernbach’s crimes seem to be without motive, motive is not an element in the crime of attempted murder. “In fact, our supreme court has upheld the rejection of an insanity defense in cases where the crimes appear to have been completely irrational,” the court wrote. The appeals court held that the jury did not err in finding Fernbach guilty, but mentally ill.

The appeals court held that due to the nature of Fernbach’s crimes – attacking two strangers and leaving them with lifelong disabilities – his 60-year sentence was not inappropriate.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  2. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  3. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  4. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  5. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

ADVERTISEMENT